Letter to the Editor, Washington Post
by Laura Kriho
May 28, 1997
I want to thank Saundra Torry for her April 7 Business column "When Jurors Choose to Ignore the Law" which discussed my prosecution for my service as a juror on a drug possession case in Colorado. I was convicted of contempt of court, in part, for failing to volunteer my knowledge about the doctrine of jury nullification to the court during jury selection, even though I wasn't asked about it. I was fined $1,200, though I could have received six months in jail.
Although I did discuss jury nullification in the jury room, I was not trying to nullify the drug laws. I had reasonable doubts that the defendant was guilty based on the lack of evidence.
My investigation and prosecution was caused by "improper" arguments I made in the jury room about jury nullification and the harsh sentence the defendant could receive. If I had voted guilty, I never would have been prosecuted.
My conviction for contempt illustrates just how threatened judges and prosecutors are by jurors. Many judges and prosecutors see jurors as an inconvenience, a formality, and an impediment to conviction. I believe they want to make me an example to other jurors: an example of what will happen to you if you refuse to convict.
The practice of prosecuting jurors based on evidence of "improper" jury room deliberations is reminiscent of Medieval inquisitions and Nazi fascism. There is no kinder way to describe it.
In Ms. Torry's column, defenders of jury nullification argue that juries were designed to protect citizens from unjust laws and unjust application of laws. The jury has been called the last line of non-violent defense against a tyrannical and oppressive government. When courts have the power to punish and imprison jurors, the jury system can no longer stand between the citizen and the government. The jury system has then become a rubber stamp for the government prosecution.
Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!
Contact Us:
Jury Rights Project